Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:37:49 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: hselasky@c2i.net Cc: sam@freebsd.org, perforce@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 154573 for review Message-ID: <20081214.143749.58455689.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <200812141559.59329.hselasky@c2i.net> References: <200812131005.33499.hselasky@c2i.net> <20081213.130816.74659290.imp@bsdimp.com> <200812141559.59329.hselasky@c2i.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <200812141559.59329.hselasky@c2i.net>
Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> writes:
: On Saturday 13 December 2008, Warner Losh wrote:
: > From: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net>
: > Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 154573 for review
: > Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:05:32 +0100
: >
:
: >
: > This is absoultely the wrong way to implement this. It is so wrong, I
: > don't even know where to begin. Consider this an 'over my dead body'
: > level of objection to this design.
: >
:
: We don't want to check a variable in the softc every time we do a htoleXX() ??
:
: Do you have a better suggestion?
Usually the bus_space stuff is used for situations like this so that
the drivers don't have to care.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081214.143749.58455689.imp>